Thursday, December 16, 2010

WHY It's Right For Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro To Not Represent Tribes with President Obama

Hunter cousin A'amokat had this in the comment section and we thought it deserved to be promoted to a full post.

Thank you to the Obama administration for not allowing people like Pechanga Chairman Mark Macarro to represent Indian country today in Washington DC.

Why, do you say, is this important to us?

 Chairman Macarro presided over denying us due process of law when we were disenrolled from the Pechanga tribe in 2006 (OP:  We were the second large family to be disenrolled) so he doesn't deserve to represent Indian country to the administration in any way, shape, or form.

Imagine for a moment that your citizenship in your nation was being questioned and you are summoned in front of a government committee, in this case the enrollment committee of your tribe, who had among the panel sitting in judgment of your fate individuals who had filed the initial challenge of your citizenship in the first place.

This first challenge was disallowed for obvious reasons but after this close family members and the friends of those same committee members submitted statements against your citizenship.   (OP:  Think of it as the relatives of Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg providing statements demanding the Supreme Court act.   Do the words recusal and improper come to mind?)

This time the challenge is allowed and even though you request to Chairman Macarro that those committee members with a clear conflict of interest be made to be recused from ruling on your case, they are allowed to sit in judgement of you and your family's fate.  (OP:  For good measure, a tribal council members's MOTHER and AUNT are on the committee)

At the initial hearing in front of the government committee questioning your citizenship in your nation you are not allowed to have an attorney present to represent you and you are not allowed to have any copies of the transcripts of the proceedings so even though the committee left out key steps of the procedures in place, you cannot document this without official transcripts so it is your word against the committee's word.   (NO representation, no discover, no right to confront accusers, no writing implements, and NO responses from the committee)

Not surprisingly the committee rules against you keeping your citizenship in your nation by a slim one vote margin.  (OP: and that one vote was "bought" by enrolling that voter's family, even though a moratorium has kept other family's members OUT of the tribe for a decade.)

The committee consisted of six members who sat in judgement of your keeping your citizenship or not and the committee members with the clear conflict of interest were three of the committee members, all of the votes against your family, with the chair not voting as the chair only would have voted in the event of a tie.

You appeal your case to the executive branch of your government, in this case the tribal council, where one of the councilman is the son of a committee member, the nephew of another committee member, and a close relative of people who submitted statements against your citizenship so he should have been made to be recused from ruling on your appeal but he is also allowed anyway to sit in judgement of your family's fate.

Once again not surprisingly you lose the appeal of the decision to take away your citizenship by one vote.

At this appeal hearing in front of the tribal council you again were not allowed to have an attorney present with you but not only that, you were not allowed to ask any questions or to even to take any notes as note taking instruments of any kind are not allowed in the hearing room per a letter you received from the tribal council prior to the appeal hearing.

The equal protection clause of the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians' constitution and bylaws under Article V, sometimes referred to as the Pechanga Band of Missions Indians, says the following:

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE BAND TO UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS, AND ORDINANCES OF THE TEMECULA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS; AND ALSO, TO UPHOLD THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF EACH MEMBER WITHOUT MALICE OR PREJUDICE."

So government officials, as you are looking into this blog, our tribe's own constitution was violated when we were disenrolled for, among others, the above reasons.

But if a tribe doesn't follow their own rules, who can make them do so?   So we need enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA).
Post a Comment